Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V.Siva Sankar Reddy vs State Of Ap on 13 March, 2020
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH,° TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ~ : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR i IA No. 1 OF 2020 < IN CRLA NO: 656 OF 2019 ~ Between: 1. Vaka Siva Sankar Reddy, S/o.Rangaiah, Age 44 years, Hindu, Occ. Municipal councillor, R/o. Yekalvya Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2. Manyam Kurpakar,, S/o. Devasahayam, Age 40 years, Hindu, Occ. Municipal Councillor, R/o.Gnanapuram, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 3. Jallipaili Dilip Kumar,, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age 43 years, Hindu, Occ. Municipal * Councillor, Rio. Syam Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 4. Mudiyam Konda Reddy,, S/o. Pulla Reddy, Age 49 years, Hindu, Occ. Municipal Councillor, R/o. M.S. Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 5 Bothala Karimulia,, S/o. Abdul Khadar, Age 42 Years, Hindu, Occ. Municipal councillor, Rio. H.No.18/25, Bothala Street, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. 6. Bandaru Chanti @ Chanti,, S/o. Ranganna, Age 44 years, Hindu, Occ. Agricuiturist, R/o. Achari Colony, Allagadda, Kurnool District. 7. Shaik Sofi Saheb @ MBT Babu,, Age 52 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. H.no.25/177-.A, Sanjeeva Nagar, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. 8. AV.R. Prasad,, S/o. Subbaiah, Age 51 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculturist, Rio. Railway Station Road, M.S. Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 9. S. Madhu Babu alias Deva Nagar Madhu,, S/o. Prasad Age 38 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Deva Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 10.Shaik Aameer,, S/o Kasimpeera, Age 47 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Bogguline, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. _..Petitioner/Appellants (Appellants in CRLA 656 OF 2019 on the file of High Court) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amarevati. _..Respondent/Respondent (Respondents in-do-) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Judgment of conviction, dated 22.7.2019 in SC No. 289 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act- cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of CRLA No.656 of 2019, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI B S REDDY Advocate for the Appellant and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondents, the Court made the following ORDER:
om > 1458 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR I.A. No.1 of 2020 in Criminal Appeal No.656 of 2019 ORDER :
1. Present I.A. No.1 of 2020 came to be filed seeking suspension of conviction dated 22.7.2019 passed in S.C. No.289 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
2. The accused were tried in S.C. No.289 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 109, 447, 120(B), 427, 452, 342, 324, 307, 354, 152, 332, 336, 506, 509 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 3(A) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The case against Al and A20 was abated as they died. Vide its judgment dated 22.7.2019, the Special Judge found A7 to Al4 guilty for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C., A2 to Al4 under Section 427 I.P.C., A2 under Section 324 1.P.C., A8 and Al4 under Section 352 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and A2 to Al4 under Section 3 (A) of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984.
3, The facts in issue show that on 31.10.2014 at about 11.30 AM while the meeting of Municipal Council was taking place at Municipal Counsel Hall, Nandyal, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing riot and in furtherance of the said common object, A2 to A21, on the instigation of Al, caused wrongful loss and damage to the property of municipal counsel by breaking the mikes, chairs and glass door of the chambers of Municipal Chair Person and also trespassed into the Municipai Chairperson chambers, made preparation for causing hurt to the Municipal Chair Person Desham Sulochana. It is further Stated that they have wrongfully restrained her by putting her under fear of hurt and wrongfully confined the Chain Person to the Said room. It was further stated that A2 caused hurt to P.W.2 by beating him with a speaker, thereby committing offence under Section 324 I.P.C. It is further said that even A3, A4 and A6 along with A7 caused hurt to P.W.3 by beating him with paper weight and speaker.
4, Challenging the judgment dated 22.7.2019 passed in S.C. No.289 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No.656 of 2019 came to be filed before this Court. While admitting the appeal, this court suspended the sentence of imprisonment on 14.8.2019. While things stood thus, the present application came to be filed seeking suspension of conviction.
5. The averments in the application show that petitioners 2 to 5 were previous Counselors of Nandyal Municipality, whose term expired in the year 2018. In view of the recent notification issued by the Government, the petitioners intend to file their nominations for the post of counselors of Nandyal Municipality from their respective wards. It is pleaded that in view of the rules of conduct of election in Municipalities, if there is no suspension of conviction, petitioners would be disqualified from contesting to the said post.
¥
6. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners - appellants, would submit that since the petitioners herein are convicted for the offences and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years, it cannot be said that these petitioners were convicted for a grave offence. He further pleads that though the offence was committed by petitioners, no steps were taken for their suspension, According to him, petitioners continued in the offence till their term is completed in the year 2018. It is urged that there was a meeting in the hall of Nandyal Municipality, in which two groups clashed leading to the incident in question. According to him, the witnesses are giving an exaggerated version, which is absolutely false and incorrect. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.Ramamurthy v. State! and the judgment in Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab? the learned counsel would submit that irreparable injury will be caused to petitioners if the conviction imposed against them is not suspended.
7. The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that suspension of conviction cannot be ordered as a matter of course and that the same can only be done in rarest of rare cases. He submits that, in the instant case, petitioners, who were public servants then, indulged in causing damage to the public property, which is unbecoming of a counselor; hence, pleads that persons, who involved in such offences which are ' (2019) 14 SCC 198 ? (2007) 2 SCC 574 grave in nature and send wrong signal to the public in general, does not deserve any order from this court.
8. One of the issue, which was raised by the Public Prosecutor, is with regard to power of the Court to suspend conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. But, the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment in Navjot Singh Sidhu's case (2 supra), where it was held that Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. confers Power not only to suspend the execution of sentence and to grant bail, but also to suspend the operation of the order appealed against, which means the order of conviction. Even the Division Bench of this Court held that such power can be exercized even under Section 482 Cr.P.c. In view of the above, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that this Court has no power to suspend or stay the conviction cannot be accepted.
9. Coming to the issue as to whether it is a fit case to suspend the conviction, in Naujot Singh Sidhu's case (2 supra) the Apex Court was dealing with circumstances where Sri Navjot Singh Sidhu, who was sitting M.P., resigned and thereafter expressed desire to contest the elections. The criminal case registered against him ended in an acquittal by the trial Court, but, however, in appeal it was reversed holding him guilty. Keeping those circumstances in the background, the Apex Court, in the said judgment, held that even if the prosecution version of the incident is accepted in toto, it may at best amount to a case under Section 323 IPC, in which event the maximum sentence which can be awarded is 1 year RI. and as such, the appellant would not incur ix any disqualification under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act. Apart from that, the Apex Court also held that the grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case.
10. In Ravikant S. Patil vs. Sarvabhouma S.Bagali * the Apex Court, while recognizing the power to stay conviction, while referring to decisions in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. +; State of T.N. v. AJaganathan 5; Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang®, held that such power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay the conviction, would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences.
11. In view of the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend if there is no stay of conviction, petitioners would lose an opportunity to contest in the elections to the municipal counselors.
12. But, in Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra' the request made by the petitioner seeking suspension of conviction was that he will incur disqualification from contesting election if his conviction is not stayed or suspended. It was also a case where the petitioner was not a habitual criminal nor has been involved in any other criminal cases. Despite the circumstances, namely, being a prominent cine artist and coming from respectable family, where his father was minister of Union Cabinet at one point of 3 (2007) 1 SCC 673 * (2001) 7 SCC 231 > 1996 SCC (Cri) 1026 ® (1995) 2 SCC 513 7 (2009) 5 SCC 787 time, the Court felt that it is not a fit case to suspend the conviction distinguishing the law laid down in Navjot Singh Sidhu's case (2 supra).
13. Similarly, in State of Maharashtra vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar 8 the Apex Court, while referring to the decisions in Rama Narang's case (6 supra); K.C.Sareen v. CBI 9 and Ravikant S. Patil's case (3 supra) held as under :
"Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, a clear picture emerges to the effect that the appellate court in an exceptional case, may put the conviction in abeyance along with the sentence, but such power must be exercised with great circumspection and caution, for the purpose of which, the applicant must satisfy the court as regards the evil that is likely to befall him, if the said conviction is not suspended. The court has to consider all the facts as are pleaded by the applicant, in a judicious manner and examine whether the facts and circumstances involved in the case are such, that they warrant such a course of action by it. The Court additionally, must record in writing, its reasons for granting such relief. Relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted only on the ground that an employee may lose his job, if the same is not done."
14. Keeping in view the law laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, it is to be seen whether there can be stay of conviction in the instant case. The incident in question is said to have taken place in the year 2014 and in spite of the same they continued to hold the post of counselors till their term is complete, which was in the year 2018. Thereafter, an appeal was filed seeking suspension of sentence, but application seeking stay of conviction was not filed. As held by the Apex Court in * (2012) 12 SCC 384 * (2001) 6 SCC 584 To, = ORwN
16. LA. No.1 of 2020 is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-K.Murali ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY// en For ASSISTANT 4 STRAR The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
The Judicial Magistrate of | Class, Nandyal, Kurnool. One CC to SRI. B S REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy HIGH COURT CPKJ DATED: 13/03/2020 ORDER IA.NO.1 OF 2020 IN CRLA.No.656 of 2019 DISMISSED